Further Dismissal of GM Corn Study

A handful of French science academies and government agencies add to a growing chorus of doubts that genetically modified corn causes tumors and early death in rats.

By Bob Grant | October 25, 2012

Wikimedia, AshlyakThe controversial French study that suggested rats fed a diet of genetically modified corn or low doses of the herbicide Roundup died earlier and developed more tumors is under more fire from the scientific community. All six of France's science academies have denounced the study, which tested a Monsanto variety of GM corn called NK603, adding to a dismissal by the European Food Safety Authority earlier this month.

"This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," the French academies said in a rare joint statement. "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorized for consumption by animals and humans."

France's High Council of Biotechnology (HCB) and the Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) also denounced the study, issuing statements that concurred with the mounting criticism of the report. Based on the two newest dismissals of the rat study, France's Ministry of Agriculture told ScienceInsider that the widely discredited research would not prompt France to freeze its imports of NK603 corn. "There is no reason to put into question the approval in France and in Europe of NK603 for animal feed and for human food."

The European Union imports millions of tons of GM corn and other grains, including NK603 corn, from the United States, Argentina, and Brazil for use as livestock feed.

We have Roundup in almost every food we eat: soy, cottonseed oil is increasingly used, and corn. Check your food ingredients. You are hard pressed to find a processed food without it. From baby formula to cereal to your frozen food section. And fed to all the livestock.

Your argument is a circumstantial ad hominem. Almost anyone who has the expertise to analyze the study has a potential vested interest.

Before you accuse me of being a shill: I'm not a fan of Monsanto. I don't like the appointment of Michael Taylor to the FDA. I don't like Round-Up and so I buy much of what I eat (that I don't grow) from local farmers. I'm very concerned about unintended consequences of GMO on ecology, moreso than I am about human health. I've been fighting this battle since about 1990, and humans have been consuming products with GMO for well over two decades now. Incidences of almost all kinds of cancer are down. If GMOs were actually causing cancer I would expect an increase.

Note again: I'm not saying I support GMO at all, just that I don't see evidence of direct harm to human health and do see evidence that my fellow activists are inflating their claims. It's distressing because it creates a polluted environment where real education and outreach is harder. If there are other obvious untruths being floated by activists, why should anyone listen to me.

Meanwhile I have spoken to the FDA and the USDA and neither can say that Monsanto has reputable tests, because it has been proven in the past that they pay their scienctists to fudge reports. They have been busted at it before. Also, the FDA and the USDA have both insisted that they do not have the manpower or the funding to conduct such tests on their own. So I say KUDOS!! to the scientists who took it upon themselves to do a real an honest test. I believe their findings are accurate because their is an increase in cancer. Mike says incidences are down, but I know a lot more people battling cancer than I did 20 yrs ago. Yes, they have a better survival rate, but they are still battling. I dont know what activists are saying, I am going by the number of people I personally know. Even the rate of children getting cancer has increased. 20 yrs ago, that was quite rare.

Lets not even talk about all the other genetic medical problems that were rare or unheard of that are becoming common place. It is wrong and irresponsible to put toxins and poisons in food at a genetic level. No good will come of it.

I knew a preteen girl who was perfectly healthy. Beautiful and smart. Went to bed one night and woke up dead in the morning. The Dr.s' told her dad to wait for the autopsy. When the autopsy came back, they said it was just a fluke. So we are all to believe that a perfectly happy, healthy child with a fine working brain dropped dead in the night because their was nothing wrong with her?

Maybe you can lie to youself, but it isnt so easy for those of us with kids to look out for. We know there is something wrong. We dont need you to see it or to agree. If you arent smart enough to know that drinking round-up and glyphonsyn is bad for you then you are probably never going to figure out that it is a bad idea to genetically merge it with every food source. That is your bad vision. It is no reason to get in the way of people trying to do the right thing.